201–210 of 227 posts
I love the point the site is trying to make but I'm confused as to why this is built with a vue.js static site generator requiring node/npm/yarn and an almost 7,000 line yarn.lock file. Shouldn't this literally be a single page, hand-built HTML file with inline CSS? Is this trying to be self-ironic or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well with javascript itself maturing, many are starting to believe jquery is no longer needed. Plus, it was the first real framework back in the day. When I think old internet, I think pre-jquery, but I guess I am getting old. We still use jquery at work...
A lot of people still use jquery at work. Regardless of improvements in javascript for DOM manipulation, Jquery is not just about that.
A few months ago I created a project called Hypertext Town, a simple project where anybody can create "camps" (a collection of HTML, images etc.) and connect them together through "towns". A town lives at a subdomain (e.g: town.hypertext.town) and a camp lives at /~camp (e.g: town.hypertext.town/~camp). I never "launched" it so it's just been languishing in obscurity on the www but if anybody wants to make cute littl…
You reinvented webrings.
Considering how much google search results dictate whether you come across information or not though, I wonder if webrings could make a lot of the web more visible these days?
I love the point the site is trying to make but I'm confused as to why this is built with a vue.js static site generator requiring node/npm/yarn and an almost 7,000 line yarn.lock file. Shouldn't this literally be a single page, hand-built HTML file with inline CSS? Is this trying to be self-ironic or something?
I love the point the site is trying to make but I'm confused as to why this is built with a vue.js static site generator requiring node/npm/yarn and an almost 7,000 line yarn.lock file. Shouldn't this literally be a single page, hand-built HTML file with inline CSS? Is this trying to be self-ironic or something?
I keep seeing this general attitude about frontend, but I have a serious question: What’s the better alternative? I’m not asking this rhetorically because I have an answer, I just keep seeing the same remarks with no decent solutions. Is it time for the way we deliver the web to be rethought? Are we really in the golden age of the frontend but everyone is being too much of a hipster to realize it? What’s the solution…
We're just starting. IMO, if we started from a better language than JS, we would take stuff like data-binding in react for Granted, since it would be much easier to this stuff it in other languages.
I love the point the site is trying to make but I'm confused as to why this is built with a vue.js static site generator requiring node/npm/yarn and an almost 7,000 line yarn.lock file. Shouldn't this literally be a single page, hand-built HTML file with inline CSS? Is this trying to be self-ironic or something?
"MySpace" websites were not "Fun", and they weren't "fun" because they looked like shit, either. They looked like shit because the tools for people who couldn't be bothered to learn HTML were shit.
Now the tools are better. There is a specific word or phrase to describe the site we're discussing, but I lack that... it'd be like someone saying "Remember when cars were suicide cages? Let's get rid of seat belts and have FUN again!". I can't say anything nice about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing this general attitude about frontend, but I have a serious question: What’s the better alternative? I’m not asking this rhetorically because I have an answer, I just keep seeing the same remarks with no decent solutions. Is it time for the way we deliver the web to be rethought? Are we really in the golden age of the frontend but everyone is being too much of a hipster to realize it? What’s the solution…
I don't know, either, but it does seem that the latest crop of frontend libraries (React & friends) is optimizing for a very high level of richness that simply isn't needed for most sites. Which is fine, but where it gets worrisome is when that lofty level of complexity is the only thing people know how to use. I recently got to watch someone spend nearly a full week fiddling with building a React app for filling out…
On the other hand, obscene overengineering is probably a good way to build a portfolio. Nobody will get hired for demonstrating that they can build an HTML form on a static page.
> We used to make websites because it was fun and at a point we lost the way I know this is just some little tongue in cheek joke, but I can't help but vehemently disagree with this. Never did we only make websites just "because it was fun" any more or less than we do now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there's some way to simulate the row by row image loading. I guess that's not the point of this website, but that would make me feel nostalgic.
Don't forget progressive JPGs, which loads the entire height of the image over and over with gradually increasing detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You totally don't have to do any of this to make this page work, I'm pretty sure all that js code is completely unnecessary...
Is it possible she is of a generation that really has no experience coding a website by hand using no frameworks or any fancy code?
- Socrates